stats server upgrade

[alpha754293]

"In 2009, we will be upgrading our stats server such that the whole database will fit in RAM (this used to be the case, but FAH has gotten quite big over the last few years and the related databases require over 20GB). We expect that this new stats server should greatly speed up stats updates."

Source: http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/mai ... =userstats

Why not cache the DB using 64 GB CF SSD? (Instead of RAM).

I don't know how long it took for the DB to get to the size that it currently is, and I don't know how long F@H has been running for, but I would think that if the trend continues the way it is, that you'd probably be able to fill 64 GB in a few years. So unless, there's going to be plans to upgrade again at that time, otherwise, why not go with something like a 64 GB CF SSD.

I suppose you could always build the system out to be nearly a DB cache server (128 GB of RAM) and then stagger the DB updates and/or incremental updates using grouped transactional disk I/O.

*ponders*....

[P5-133XL]

Wikipedia says folding has been running since Oct. 1st, 2000.

[alpha754293]

Wikipedia says folding has been running since Oct. 1st, 2000.

I was trying to stay away from wiki if I could, and going straight for the source. (Albeit, I didn't really look.)

[uncle_fungus]

First published article: http://fah-web.stanford.edu/papers/SPScience2000.pdf

[alpha754293]

I'm asking about the whole DB cache thing cuz I was reading on Sun's website about how they're using CF SSDs now to cache frequently accessed used/files on their storage servers now. I just figured that this would be a perfect example of such an application since it's far easier to scale CF SSD storage than RAM. (And probably less costly per GB as well).

[P5-133XL]

Check this thread out and look at my comment ...

[alpha754293]

thanks for the link.